Paper Apology Cannot Be Accepted in Contempt Cases: Andhra Pradesh HC
Principle: "Paper Apology" Not Sufficient in Contempt of Court Cases
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that in contempt proceedings, a mere written apology ("paper apology") that is not genuine, remorseful, or backed by sincere conduct will not be accepted. The Court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction is meant to uphold the dignity and authority of the court, and a casual or strategic apology cannot be used to escape liability.
Understanding Contempt of Court
Contempt of Court is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and falls under two broad categories:
Civil Contempt – Willful disobedience of court orders.
Criminal Contempt – Acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the court, prejudice judicial proceedings, or obstruct justice.
Andhra Pradesh High Court's Rationale
Key Observations:
Genuineness Is Key
The Court has held that an apology must be bona fide, not a formality to avoid punishment. An apology is acceptable only if it reflects real remorse and acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
Timing and Conduct Matter
An apology that is offered at the last moment, after the contemnor is cornered or about to face punishment, is considered an afterthought and not a mitigating factor.
Respect for the Institution
The Court emphasized that contempt powers exist not to protect the judges personally but to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.
No Automatic Exoneration
A written apology does not automatically absolve a person from contempt. The court has the discretion to decide whether it is acceptable based on conduct, sincerity, and circumstances.
Relevant Case Laws (with AP HC application)
Though some of the landmark cases are from the Supreme Court, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has cited and followed them in its rulings.
1. L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., (1984) 3 SCC 405
Held: An apology that is "calculated" or tendered only to avoid punishment is not acceptable.
AP HC Application: The Court has quoted this case to stress that a contempt proceeding is not to be taken lightly, and an apology cannot be used as a “weapon of defense.”
2. Mulk Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1197
Held: Apology is not a weapon of defence; it must be a real expression of regret, not a mere formality.
AP HC Observation: The Court used this to reject a contemnor’s typed apology which lacked remorse and was filed just before sentencing.
3. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot, (2006) 5 SCC 1
Held: An apology offered without genuine remorse is not acceptable; it must come from the heart and be offered at the earliest opportunity.
Andhra Pradesh HC Reference: The Court applied this principle to hold that an apology tendered late in the proceeding, only to avoid punishment, would not suffice.
4. Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584
Held: The dignity of the court is paramount, and apology cannot be used to undermine judicial authority.
Application by AP HC: In cases involving senior advocates or officials, the Court emphasized that the apology must not only be written but also demonstrated through conduct.
Illustrative Case from Andhra Pradesh HC
In a contempt case involving a government officer who delayed implementation of a court order and later filed a written apology after show cause notice:
The Court rejected the apology, stating it was filed only after coercive steps were initiated.
The language of the apology lacked sincerity and was termed as a "paper apology".
The officer was found guilty of contempt, and penal action was taken despite the apology.
Conclusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court follows a strict approach in contempt cases:
Paper apologies are not enough unless they are genuine, remorseful, and timely.
The apology must reflect sincere acknowledgment of wrongdoing, not be a tactic to avoid consequences.
The court's dignity and authority are paramount, and the contempt power is essential to uphold them.
RELATED Blog
0 comments